#Make BJU Aniol Again

[wutbju]

In the evening service, Aniol leaps off from I Corinthians 14. You know the passage (3:46):

Now here we have a passage of scripture dedicated to discussion of prophecy and tongues, and these are hot button issues and and often maybe one of the reasons we we don't typically look at this chapter to discern what Paul is, is teaching us regarding the nature of corporate worship. I believe that the gifts of prophecy and tongues have ceased in our day, and so sometimes we who believe that might be tempted to think, "well then this chapter doesn't have anything to teach us," but far from it, because the reasons that Paul gives to the Corinthian church for why believers should desire prophecy over tongues in corporate worship. The reasons that he gives for that actually help us to profoundly understand the nature and the purpose of corporate worship.

So just so we all understand each other, Scott, you're not taking this passage as it is intended. You're taking this passage for what you want it to say.

Just sayin'.

[wutbju]

We knew Aniol would get to it. He wanted to drill down to say that musical forms are ... well, sacred.

And honestly, I personally don't disagree. But Scott is so prescriptive about it. Near the end he states (43:00):

Yes, that movie you let them watch might not have any swear words or immoral scenes, but does it have a subtle underlying message that teaches their hearts that they must love themselves above all, or that love is simply a romantic feeling that we fall in and out of? That's shaping their hearts? Or you might only let your children listen to music with Christian lyrics. But does the musical style and instrumentation teach your children's hearts that love for God really is no different than romantic love?

Does a "child" even know romantic love? At all? In any way? This is so backwards.

The first love we all know is parental love. I mean we know it from before we're even breathing oxygen.

Why test children's understanding of love like you're doing? It's so plainly bizarre.

And then ... what does Aniol say in the evening?

[wutbju]

Sigh. . . . I always brace myself when any fundamentalist theobro starts talking about "hope" (15:00):

In general, throughout its history and the tribe of Ephraim specifically, what is the solution? What hope do we have that we will not fall into the same trap as the Tribe of Israel generally? And as Ephraim specifically? Give ear O people to my law. Incline your ears to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in a parable. I will utter dark sayings of old which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us we will not hide them from their children. Showing to the generation to come the praises of the Lord and his strength and his wonderful works that he has done, you see the hope, the hope for preventing the tragedy that Ephraim experienced is found in our children.

Wait.

Scott. Honey.

Let's say I start talking about a particular Awana night at Calvary Baptist Church in metro Detroit in 1987. The details don't really matter.

I say something like ... let's remember where we came from and how God loved us enough to put us in loving families and in loving covenant communities where we all were nurtured and cared for and loved. Let us remember how God guided us even from the beginning.

Remember how there were people we weren't even related to who listened to and shepherded us and applauded our achievements. Through them we saw God's love.

That's how much God loves you. And God still loves you! He still will keep and guide and shepherd and nurture you -- the same as he did when you were very, very small.

That's what the Psalm is saying, Scott.

It's not a lesson plan. It's an epic poem with God as the hero!

It's not about us. It's about Him and how He loves us!

I remember when my daughter was born still. I was lying in the hospital bed still waiting for the epidural to wear off. Dad and Mom were on the other side of the delivery room. Everybody had held Elise. We had all just said goodbye. And some dear friends had just arrived from Tennessee. They asked my dad something like, "How did you come to Jesus?"

And Dad started recalling the family story of Steve's conversion and Mom's conversion and his conversion and my conversion. All there in that story. He went back -- way back -- to the 1920s in that story. But it was a story of God's care for us at a very, very sad moment.

That's the point of the Psalm, my dear little Sparkie.

[wutbju]

Scott uses that old undergraduate example of how we answer the question "How are you?" to explain nonverbals. ::yawn::

It's like a tone of voice. If you were to ask me, how are you doing? And I were to answer with the word FINE.... How I say that word is going to present an interpretation of that word that then shapes your perception of how I'm actually doing.

He eventually says it plainly too:

Remember that how we say something or how we sing something matters.

Conservatives love that verb "matters" right now, btw.

Yes, it does matter. It matters because we don't want to hurt our voice when we sing or we want to be kind to others when we talk.

But there's no evidence that it MATTERS to God.

The Bible is God's baby talk, Scott. Just like we love it when our little one attempts to talk with us, God loves it when we talk with Him. He's our Heavenly Daddy, not some ogre we have to worry about pleasing.

[wutbju]

Of course, he doesn't like the term "authentic."

The dominant starting point for much of evangelical worship today is not what God has spoken God's word, but rather what is most authentic to the worshippers. And sometimes it even sounds God centered. "I want to be able to authentically express worship to God," sounds God centered. But in the name of authenticity, the starting point is not God's word, but the self.

You know you're doing the same thing that you're accusing the "evangelicals" of doing, yes? "Starting" with "God's word" is as arbitrary as the term "authentic."

You don't believe or practice exclusive psalmody. Clearly.

So if you're not going to do that, your argument doesn't hang together.

You just like what you know. Which is okay. I like what you know too. ;) We sang "Fairest Lord Jesus" this morning too.

[wutbju]

From that position that I Corinthians 14 is for Scott's particular hobby horse, he identifies the ways he thinks we should do music in church (12:21):

Well, Paul argues the fact that biblical worship in order for it to be edifying to all biblical worship must be corporate, not individualistic. But Paul is saying here in First Corinthians 14 that when we gather as the church, our focus ought to be corporate edification, not simply individualistic expression.... God is not the author of confusion that is disorder, but of peace. It is worship that is intentionally corporate, not individualistic, orderly worship that sanctifies us through the word of God.

He's trying to say that churches shouldn't have a "praise team" (25:03) and it shouldn't have a "worship leader" (24:43).

There are two problems here.

There are biblical examples of people leading others in worship. Remember Palm Sunday, Scott? We didn't celebrate it in our youth as it should be celebrated, but the little ones lead the adults in worship. This is actual worship, not deduced from prophecy or tongues as a parallel argument.

What is one person's order is another person's confusion. Do the birds worship? Yes! Is it confusion to us? Most likely. The definition of "order" is intersubjective, and it always will be.

You need to expand your horizons a little, Scott. I say that as your former rhetoric teacher (whom you tried to get fired, but .... still).

[wutbju]

And this is likely the reason Mazak was more accommodating than authoritarian in his introduction. He was about to be conclusive where the rest of the speakers were imprecise (here and here).

He plainly defines despair:

Depression is despair or 'hopelessness.'

No Ifs, Ands, or Buts.

And while Dr. Dionne said the word "depression" is not in the Bible, Mazak says it is.

Of course, he had to go to a different translation to find it.

Misunderstanding Jesus' words, putting everything into a single rhyming sentence, and cherry-picking verses and translations--what could go wrong!?

[wutbju]

This is meaningless. Utterly meaningless.

Mazak is citing Matthew 15 at this spot. And Jesus' point is somewhat the opposite of where Mazak is going.

Jesus is saying, in sum, that the sin isn't OUT THERE. The sin is in HERE. In other words, separating from harlots and tax collectors does you no good because you yourself are a sinner.

That's not where Mazak is going. Mazak is instead saying that a person's depression isn't because of a chemical imbalance or a difficult set of circumstances or unresolved trauma.

The person's depression is the result of their sin.

Jesus is so not saying that at all in any way.

[wutbju]

At 17:00, Aniol states:

We must tell the coming generations the wondrous works of the Lord.

Fair. I agree.

You aptly connect this to the New Testament (20:00):

We are commanded to bring up our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Telling the next generation the wondrous deeds of the Lord is not something that we can pass off to other people primarily.

That's good. I agree. I'm doing that here. You realize that, yes? That I'm reminding you of how God was taking care of you even when you were a Sparkie back in 1987.

But you can't resist the allure of Pharisaism. It's so tempting (25:00):

We don't sometimes recognize the danger of integrating our children into the world. It's very easy to miss the danger of the Pagan influences of our day, but they are all around us. Secularism is a Pagan religion. It has infected everything in our modern culture, including pop music and entertainment and politics and education. There is no such thing as Reality in the culture around us. All culture is shaped by religious beliefs and values, and the unbelieving culture around us has been profoundly shaped by beliefs and values that are contrary to what the Bible teaches. We need to always be aware of that. And each of these elements of what the New Testament calls our present Evil Age is actively working to undermine Christian values, actively working to take our children from us.

So is God actually God? Or is the Evil Age god? Are you a Manichean or a Christian, Scott?

[wutbju]

It's pretty plain where Scott Aniol is headed (11:46). After explaining that the Israelites had integrated everything with their pagan neighbors:

It was very common for Pagan nations to have religious talismans that they would bring with them to battle as a sort of good luck charm, and that's exactly what the Israelites ... what the Ephraimites intended. They thought that if they took the ark out of the Tabernacle at Shiloh and brought it with them to battle, then surely God would be with them. And of course, you know what happened. They lost miserably.

Wait. He caught himself there. Do you see it?

He wants to blame the "Ephraimites" explicitly for the military loss.

The Bible seems to more explicitly blame Eli's sons, Hophni and Phinehas. Eli, btw, was descended from Aaron who was in the tribe of Levi.

So ... whatevs really. But that's kind of like blaming 9/11 on Chelsea Clinton.

But Scott has to wedge his point into Psalm 78.

[wutbju]

Scott Aniol continues (10:00)

[God] did not want the people worshipping as the pagans worshipped on their high places, using their altars, and so God had commanded the Israelites to completely wipe out all of the pagan people from the promised land to destroy their high places, to destroy all of their sacred places of worship.

Fair. That's accurate. But look at the language Aniol uses to extend that comparison:

But of course, we know that the people of Israel in general, and particularly Ephraim as the central leading Blessed Tribe, disobeyed the Lord's command. They took the pragmatic route instead of separating themselves from the pagans, they integrated themselves with the pagans. And at first, Ephraim remained the dominant group among the pagan people the pagans paid tribute to them, but Scripture is very clear when God's people integrate themselves into the Pagan world. The values and the customs and the practices, and even the worship of the Pagans will begin to influence God's people and lead them astray.

Pragmatic. Integrated. Influenced.

It's one thing that in ancient times with a fledgling nation being told to have very, very clear cultural boundaries.

It's a whole 'nother thing to compare this to ...

We know what's coming, don't we?

[wutbju]

Scott Aniol, BJU Class of 2003, preached at Faith Free Presbyterian this weekend for a "family conference." He's definitely a darling of those Detroit BJU Board members, and so we alumni should probably tune in. This might be BJU's future.

He said nothing new. It's the same-old, same-old message he's always had. He misreads Psalm 78 to say that it's about "worship" (~9:30):

You see, the first thing that led to the downfall of Ephraim is that they disobeyed the clear command of God to completely wipe out the Pagan inhabitants of the land of Canaan. Ephraim failed to obey that command. Instead, they saw a more profitable alternative. Why don't we let the Pagans live and put them to work? Have them pay us tribute? But God's concern was for the purity of his worship.

Wait. What?

That's not what the Text says, Scott. There's an entire culture, an entire way of life that the Psalm is describing. Is "worship" now just a catch-all term? Like we used to use "world view" and before that "lifestyle"?

[wutbju]

Scott Aniol reads WutBJU even though he's blocked the feed everywhere. He loves the publicity.

He's acting like he's not a name that's been mentioned, and his buddies don't sound too impressed.

So Scott, Mike Harding is the one who keeps pushing you to the front of the list. Has he not mentioned this to you? Or are you playing coy?

[wutbju]

Wow. The rumors are really flying this morning. Today is likely to have a conclusion to all this kerfuffle though.

But this? WutBJU is hearing that Scott Aniol (Guenter Salter's great nephew) is on the "short list." That's Mike Harding's choice. We all know it is.

But Matt Herbster is subtly saying the same:

These people.